Intercomparison of PIXE and ICP‐AES Analyses of Aeolian Dust from Owens (Dry) Lake,California

Particle‐induced X‐ray emission (PIXE) and ICP‐AES can be combined to obtain a wider range of detected elements, augment previous data and/or to verify measured concentrations of heavy and trace metals in geological samples. Intercomparison of data sets generated by multiple techniques is challenging due to the differing processes and methods of each technique. Here, we compare elemental data obtained by both techniques for aeolian dust from Owens (Dry) Lake, California. Nineteen elements were detected by PIXE, sixteen by ICP‐AES and ten elements were detected by both techniques. Statistical analyses of data set groupings illustrated which parameters differed significantly between PIXE and ICP‐AES. Relative variation (%) showed that PIXE gave higher concentrations than ICP‐AES for Al, As, Cu, Fe, K, Mn, Ni, Sr, Ti and Zn in all samples. For As, Cu, Sr and Zn, relative variation was variable between the techniques. PIXE detection limits exceeded ICP‐AES concentrations for Ba, Cd, Co, Cr, Pb and Mo. Low ICP‐AES percentage recoveries of Al, Fe, K, Mn and Ti for NIST SRM 2710 indicated incomplete dissolution during digestion (EPA Method 3050B), since elements were bound in silicate structures. Variability between the two data sets is explained by differences between analytical techniques, sample preparation methods and/or variability in sample matrices.